Social Analysis of Mortuary Evidence in German Protohistoric Archaeology

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 369 –384 (2000) doi:10.1006/jaar.2000.0364, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Social Analysis of Mortuary Evidence in German Protohistoric Archaeology Heinrich Ha¨rke Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AA, United Kingdom Received January 29, 1998; revision received September 29, 1999; accepted January 24, 2000 German early historical archaeology has witnessed since the 1960s an intensive debate on the social analysis of mortuary remains. It started out with the question of archaeological criteria for the inference of social status in early medieval cemeteries. In the 1970s, attention shifted from quantitative to qualitative analyses of grave goods and to the use of data on labor investment and skeletal data. In the last decade or so, younger colleagues have tried to overcome the weaknesses of traditional inferences from grave goods (status, religion, ethnic affiliation) by looking at the implications of ritual, and new methods of analyzing biological kinship have been applied to identify families in prehistoric and early medieval cemeteries. The German debate shows similarities to as well as differences from the Anglophone debate. It is suggested that we may learn from these parallel developments, but we should also learn from the fact that two scholarly debates on the same subject could ignore each other for 3 decades. © 2000 Academic Press Key Words: German archaeology; mortuary studies; archaeological theory.

illustrated by the major publications reviewing the state of the respective debates: Tainter’s 1978 paper which was meant as a review of approaches to the social analysis of mortuary remains (Tainter 1978: 105) cited only Englishlanguage publications, while Bartel’s review paper of analyses of mortuary practice (Bartel 1982) quoted two German works, both by 19th century anthropopologists; on the other side of the divide, Steuer’s massive book reviewing social analysis in European archaeology (Steuer 1982) listed only six English-language publications on mortuary analysis, lifted en bloc from a footnote in a Scandinavian paper (Thrane 1981). The only contact between the two camps happened via British early historical archaeology (James 1980, 1989; Samson 1987; Ha¨rke 1989), but this happened at a late stage and had no impact on either debate. It is suggested here that both debates, as well as the discipline as a whole, might

Since the 1960s, Anglo-American and (West) German archaeology have witnessed intensive debates on the analysis and social interpretation of burials. The Anglophone debate originated, and has run primarily, in prehistoric archaeology, with a later extension into historical archaeology (Saxe 1970; Binford 1971; Brown 1971, 1995; Tainter 1975, 1978; Chapman et al. 1981; O’Shea 1984; Morris 1987), and it went through a major paradigm shift (Hodder 1980, 1982; Parker Pearson 1982, 1995; Pader 1982; Shanks and Tilley 1982; Tilley 1984). By contrast, the German debate had its origin in protohistoric (early historical) archaeology, stayed largely in this field, and remained close to its intellectual roots throughout its course. The two debates show similarities as well as significant differences. But while they have run parallel to each other in time, they have ignored each other to an extent that they may as well have run in parallel universes. This is perfectly 369

0278-4165/00 $35.00 Copyright © 2000 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

¨ RKE HEINRICH HA

370

have benefited, and may yet benefit, from taking notice of each other. EARLY ASSUMPTIONS The beginnings of a systematic concern with burial analysis in German archaeology go back to the mid 1920s. In a volume on the archaeology of the early middle ages in the Rhineland, Schumacher (1925: 217–218) outlined the range of inferences possible from graves of this period: (1) ethnic identification; (2) religion (pagan or Christian); and (3) social differences which may be inferred, to a certain degree, from grave furniture (weapons and dress). In the same year, a paper by Paul Reinecke, renowned for his fundamental chronological studies, addressed the theoretical foundations of inferences from grave goods. Reinecke (1925) quoted recent studies by historians of Germanic law to argue that grave goods were a consequence of law, not religion: the deceased had the right to be buried with his or her personal, inalienable property, the socalled hergewaete (military equipment of the man) and gerade (household tools and dress items of the woman); after the conversion, the inalienable property (or its equivalent) was given to the Church, and burial shifted from separate cemeteries to churchyards. In a subsequent cemetery publication, Veeck (1926) used the weapons found in Alamannic male graves to identify social classes named in the early laws (nobility, free men, semifree men, unfree/serfs; Table 1). The hergewaete argument was restated after the war (Redlich 1948) and remained influential into the 1960s and beyond (cf. Genrich 1971; Fehring 1979: 568). While originally it had been formulated to replace the assumption that grave goods were determined by belief, the religious premise survived, and in some cases the legal and religious perspectives were merged: e.g., Paulsen (1967: 150) postu-

lated that ideas of the hereafter led to the provision of grave goods, while property rules determined the selection of the goods for deposition in the grave, thus effecting a transfer of social status distinctions from the world of the living to the world of the dead. These two basic premises, whether explicit or implicit, have justified the assumption (widespread until the present day) that goods deposited in a grave would reflect functional sets of equipment (armament, household tool kits) as well as the social status of the deceased. Veeck’s approach was taken up by later researchers and dominated the study of early medieval cemeteries for almost 5 decades (Table 1, after R. Koch 1967: 103 Table 1; Steuer 1968: 57 Abb. 1, 1982: 311 Abb. 88). Some authors went as far as to suggest specific material culture criteria (such as precious metals, riding equipment, etc.) for the identification of graves of the nobility (Ament 1970: 131– 151, 178 –186; U. Koch 1982: 87; Mu¨ller 1976: 146 –149; Werner 1968: 32, 80). FROM QUANTITY TO QUALITY: THE ANALYSIS OF GRAVE GOODS From the 1960s onward, this entire approach and its underlying premises came under criticism, and a debate on assumptions, methods, and procedures of burial archaeology started in early historical archaeology. Criticism was directed against the determinism of directly equating specific grave goods with specific legal status positions (Christlein 1966: 89). It was also noted that this procedure ignored regional variation and chronological change, treating early medieval society as essentially monolithic and static (Werner 1968: 98 –99; Janssen 1980: 95–96). The written sources on which the legal argument had been based are high medieval and thus several centuries later than burials with grave goods, which in western

371

GERMAN MORTUARY ANALYSIS TABLE 1 Suggested Correlations of Weapons and Social Status in Frankish and Alamannic Cemeteries (after Steuer 1982) Nobility

Free men Large farm owner

Veeck (1926)

Semifree Unfree

Small farm owner

Sw

Se

Sp

Ax

Landless

Sh

Stoll (1939)

Sw Se Sp Sh

Se

Laur-Belart (1948)

Sw Se Sp Sh

Bo¨hner (1958)

Sw ⫹ Se or Sp (two weapons)

Sw

Se

Se Sp

Sh

Dannheimer (1962)

Ax

Se

Se

Sp

Ar

?

Weapons Sw ⫹/or Se Sp Sh

Stein (1967) Schach-Do¨rges (1970)

Sw

Sw

Schmidt (1976)

Sw!

Se

Sp

Se alone

? Se

Sp

Ax

Sw! ⫹ other weapons

Martin (1976)

Koch (1977)

Se? Sp

Sw or Se ⫹ second weapon

Neuffer-Mu¨ller (1966)

Mu¨ller (1976)

Sp

Sw

Werner (1953)

Ar

Se or Sp

Se

Sw or Ax ⫹ Sp

Fremersdorf (1955)

Ar

Se

Sw

Schmidt (1961)

Sp Sp Sw

Grimm (1953)

serfs

Sh

Se Sh

Se Sp Sh horsegear

Sw

Sp

?

Sp ⫹ other weapons ?

Sw

Sw Se Sp Sh horsegear

Se Sp Sh horsegear Sw Se Sp Sh

Sp

Sw

Sh

Ar

Ax

Se or Sp

Note. Sw!, decorated sword; Sw, sword; Se, seax; Sp, spear, lance; Sh, shield; Ax, axe; Ar, arrows.

Germany and adjacent territories ceased in the 8th century A.D. But the hergewaete assumption was also defended in the debate and continued to be applied in some studies (e.g., Stein 1967: 181–183). On the opposing side, Steuer, in particular, pointed out the danger of circular argument inherent in the conventional approach and suggested abandoning the archaeological search for legally defined social classes (Steuer 1968: 39 – 40, 56). Steuer’s 1968 paper did for burial analysis in German protohistory what Binford’s 1971 paper was to do for mortuary studies in Anglo-American prehistoric archaeology. Steuer’s critique had a pro-

found influence on the debate, but initially his own approach did not differ fundamentally from that of previous work in this field. He, too, assumed a direct link between grave goods (in particular weapons) and social status. Where he differed was in the inferences he thought possible: he considered weapons in early medieval male graves a sufficiently accurate reflection of the armory of the deceased, which makes them primarily an indicator of his material wealth and social status, but not reliably of his legal status (Steuer 1968: 19, 29 –30). From an analysis of male burials in published Frankish and Alamannic cemeteries, he inferred three social classes in

372

¨ RKE HEINRICH HA

the Merovingian period (late 5th to 7th centuries A.D.; Steuer 1968: 58 –59). Subsequently, though, he modified his ideas of Merovingian society, and he now suggests the model of an offene Ranggesellschaft (open ranked society) in which class distinctions were fluid, to some degree, and social status distinctions within families were as important as social differences between them (Steuer 1982: 518 – 525, 1984a: 79 – 80, 196 Fig. 133). This view has attracted agreement as well as criticism (Ament 1987; Kunow 1984). Steuer has also become less optimistic about social inferences from burials alone: he now believes that the integration of settlement and burial evidence should lead to better results (Steuer 1982: 518). Interestingly, his continued use of positivist assumptions was not criticized, but critics noted that Steuer, like virtually everyone before him, based his analysis entirely on grave goods (and more specifically weapons) from male burials. Female grave goods in early medieval cemeteries present a more complex picture which does not lend itself to social ranking exercises quite as readily as weapon types do. This narrow basis of all social analyses up to the late 1960s, and their all too often incompatible interpretations, led, by about 1970, to a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction and to the opinion that a different approach should be found (e.g., Fingerlin 1971: 162; Werner 1968: 108). Some, while accepting in principle a connection between social status and grave goods, pointed out the need for a clear methodology and demanded that until criteria for the social interpretation of burials had been worked out, the analysis should be limited to “functional” questions, e.g., the inference of armament from weapons in graves (Werner 1968: 99 –100). On the whole, this minimalist (though no less positivist) perspective did not prevail. Social interpretations of graves con-

tinued, but as a result of the debate, a number of refinements and alternatives were applied, and the terminology that had been used for a long time was subjected to critical examination (e.g., Gebu¨hr 1974 on so-called “princely graves” of the Roman Iron Age). The most influential contribution came from Christlein (1966, 1973), who suggested widening the database while at the same time limiting its interpretation. The former was achieved by including female burials, and a much wider range of grave goods, in the analysis. This approach resulted from Christlein’s premise that grave furniture reflects primarily the wealth of the deceased and his or her family. The aim of burial analysis should, therefore, be to infer the economic power of individuals within their community (Christlein 1973: 148). On the basis of types of artifacts (not their quantity) found in Alamannic and Frankish graves, he subdivided male and female burials into several Qualita¨tsgruppen (quality groups): from A, the lowest, to C, the highest (Table 2), with a possible fourth group, D, at the top end of the scale (Christlein 1973: 174, footnote 111). True to his premise, he did not identify these groups with specific social classes or strata, although he assumed that they should reflect the actual social conditions (Christlein 1973: 148), and he took care to characterize the people behind each quality group as adhering to a particular “habitus” (Christlein 1973: 160)—a concept picked up 2 decades later in British postprocessual archaeology, though without reference to Christlein. The reaction in German archaeology to Christlein’s scheme has been overwhelmingly positive. Steuer, in his review of social interpretations in German archaeology, concurred that analysis by quality groups produces convincing patterns in the early medieval burial evidence (Steuer 1982: 516). Christlein’s classification of graves has been widely adopted and is

GERMAN MORTUARY ANALYSIS TABLE 2 Quality Groups of Early Medieval Graves in Southwest Germany (after Christlein)

Male graves X X x x

B C

x X X X X X x X x

X X X X X X X X X X X

Bow and arrow Seax (battle knife) Glass vessel (6th cent.) Spear Spatha (long sword) Shield Hunting spear Spurs Wooden bucket Angon (barbed spear) Helmet/body armor Horse bit and harness

Male and female graves x X X x x Female graves x x x X X x X x X x X x X X X x x x x x x X x x X x x X X

stratum—an alternative which itself implies a circular argument. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES: LABOR INVESTMENT AND SKELETAL DATA

Quality group A

373

Glass vessel (7th century) Bronze vessel Bucket with metal fittings Gold finger ring Gold beads Knife with golden handle Gold disk brooch Leggings with silver fittings Wooden box with fittings Gold earrings Silver finger ring Pair of bow brooches Silver earrings Pin Disk pendant Leggings (iron/bronze fittings) Disk brooch (silver/bronze/iron) Bronze earrings Glass beads

Note. x, rare; X, frequent.

still the dominant model of social ranking of Frankish and Alamannic graves. One of the few critical voices was that of Vierck (1980: 461), who emphasized the danger of circular argument in this approach and suggested starting any social analysis from the top, with burials which are known to belong to the uppermost social

An alternative to Christlein’s methodology was the use of other data, such as grave size, grave structures, and skeletal data. This approach has been explored by various authors whose analysis was based on the premise that labor investment in the burial is as much an indicator of social status as are grave goods. From about 1970 onward, grave dimensions and the sizes of burial mounds have been analyzed in regional studies of Iron Age cemeteries and burials (Schlu¨ter 1970; Lorenz 1978; Rolle 1979; Sankot 1980). In early medieval archaeology, this approach has been applied mainly to individual sites, and one of the first to do so was Christlein himself (1966: 13–14, 1971: 12). In some cemeteries, a correlation was found between grave dimensions and structures (chamber, coffin, etc.), on the one hand, and the quality of grave goods, on the other hand (Koch 1977: 171–174; Neuffer-Mu¨ller 1972: 13–14; Paulsen and Schach-Do¨rges 1978: 88). In other, contemporary cemeteries, though, such a correlation was absent (Fingerlin 1971: 39; Neuffer 1972: 12; Neuffer-Mu¨ller and Ament 1973: 20) or weak (Mu¨ller 1976: 125–126). But this line of analysis has also demonstrated a methodological problem. Fingerlin (1971: 16) concluded from the data of the Gu¨ttingen cemetery that wooden grave structures were not tied to high social status, which he defined entirely through grave goods. By contrast, Neuffer-Mu¨ller (1972: 71) suggested for the Iversheim cemetery that in its early phase, high social status had been expressed by the deposition of weapons and jewelery, but in the later phase by the provision of stone coffins—in other words,

374

¨ RKE HEINRICH HA

she saw grave structures as an independent social indicator. Physical anthropological data have rarely been used systematically in German burial archaeology. One of the few exceptions has been Gebu¨hr and his students, who have analyzed the social and demographic structures of, mainly, Roman Iron Age cemeteries in Northern Germany and Denmark. Their approach has been to analyze archaeological and skeletal data in conjunction, in particular comparing grave goods with biological age and sex determinations (Gebu¨hr 1975, 1976, 1994; Gebu¨hr and Kunow 1976; Gebu¨hr et al. 1989; Kunst 1978; Burmeister 1993; Derks 1992, 1993, 1997). In the case of early medieval cemeteries where the inhumed skeletal remains offer incomparably better opportunities, similar studies are rare. In some cemetery publications, comparisons between grave goods and key skeletal data (sex and age at death) have resulted in interesting observations. For example, correlations between age groups and specific weapon types and sizes have been found at Marktoberdorf (Christlein 1966: 21–35), Schretzheim (Koch 1977: 177), and Ru¨benach (Ament, in Henke and Nedder 1981: 422). Some physical anthropologists have checked archaeologically defined status groups against skeletal data, interpreting physical differences, in particular stature differentials, between such groups in ethnic (Huber 1967, Straub 1956) or environmental (Czarnetzki et al. 1983: 24 –36) terms. Multidimensional analyses involving the combined use of grave goods, grave structures, and skeletal data to arrive at social inferences emerged in German-language protohistoric archaeology during the 1970s. While some key elements of such an approach were already present in Ament’s publication of the aristocratic cemetery of Flonheim (Ament 1970), probably the most refined multidimensional analysis to date has been Martin’s publi-

cation of the Alamannic cemetery of Basle-Bernerring (Martin 1976). Using the full range of data available, he identified two social groups, “nobility” and “serfs,” and he used a detailed, artifact-based chronology to trace the development over time of the cemetery and of the aristocratic household behind it. He tentatively identified married couples and families on the basis of common origins of artifacts and their dates and the spatial arrangement of graves within the cemetery (Martin 1976: 158 –164). RECENT PERSPECTIVES: KINSHIP AND RITUAL While the German debate on fundamental aspects of burial archaeology has quieted down somewhat since Steuer’s wide-ranging survey of social analysis (Steuer 1982), the development of methods and of certain lines of inquiry has continued. The search for noble and other families in cemeteries has become one of the current themes. This interest started in the 1970s with the suggestion that only aristocratic families practiced burial in kin-group cemeteries, which may be identified by their small size, wealth, and their continuous use over a limited period (Christlein 1966; Ament 1970: 130 –151). The recent development of this theme may have been influenced by the detailed analyses of the Danish archaeologist Jørgensen (1987, 1991: 62–70), who used archaeological criteria (juxtaposition of male and female graves of comparable wealth, spatial patterning, and horizontal stratigraphy of the cemetery) to identify spouses, families, and generations in Iron Age to early medieval cemeteries of southern Scandinavia and Lombard Italy. In Germany, Koch (1990: 243–247) tried to differentiate between family members and the comitatus (personal war band) of an aristocratic household in the cemetery of Klepsau, but admitted that it is a difficult prop-

GERMAN MORTUARY ANALYSIS

osition on the basis of the archaeological data alone (location of sword in grave, spatial patterning within cemetery, horizontal stratigraphy of burial plots). In spite of this difficulty, the purely archaeological approach to the identification of families and kin groups has continued (e.g., Kersting 1992). The growing realization that this line of research requires the use of additional, biological data has now led to a cooperation between archaeologists and physical anthropologists, who in the meantime have refined their methods of kinship analysis. The most successful method so far is based on the analysis of some 375 dental traits the heritability of which has been established and which can, therefore, be used to calculate the degree of biological relationship between individuals (Alt et al. 1993; Alt and Vach 1994, 1995). The case of the small Early Iron Age barrow cemetery of Dattingen has demonstrated the potential of this approach: the statistical analysis of the absence and the presence of characteristic dental traits has allowed Alt and his co-workers to suggest that at least one of the barrows was a family tomb, and because of the close biological relationship between females at the site, and the absence of such relationships with and among the males, they have also suggested that the marriage rules included exogamy and matrilocality (Alt et al. 1995). This approach has now been extended to the early medieval cemetery of Kirchheim in Southwest Germany, an inhumation site with remains of 530 individuals in 480 graves (Jørgensen et al. 1997). Archaeological criteria, including close dating of grave goods, spatial patterning of graves, and the horizontal stratigraphy of the cemetery, support the identification of 11 distinct plots; these are hypothesized to be the burial areas of social units, one of which appears, by its wealthy burials, to have been of “aristocratic” status (Jør-

375

gensen et al. 1997: 103–104). The analysis of dental traits confirms the family hypothesis for 8 of the plots, and it reveals connections between all “ordinary” families, suggesting a network of intermarriage in which, significantly, the “aristocratic” family did not participate (Jørgensen et al. 1997: 104 –105). This innovative approach has huge potential for the social analysis of cemeteries, and while the odontological analysis is labor-intensive and time-consuming, it appears to be a realistic alternative to DNA analysis. Another recent theme of German burial archaeology is a concern with burial ritual itself and the inference of meaning from ritual data. The early interest shown in this question by one of the founding fathers of German postwar archaeology, Eggers (1959: 265–267), was not followed up until 2 decades later, when Hu¨bener (1977: 511–512) emphasized that social and military interpretations of weapons in graves must be preceded by a detailed study of their chronology, distribution, and use in the burial ritual. Studies which adopted this line of enquiry have demonstrated how misleading the positivist assumption of graves as “mirrors of life” (thus the title of an exhibition; Haffner 1989) can be: seemingly “obvious” symbols, such as weapons in graves, were found to symbolize social status or ethnic affiliation rather than a warrior’s role (Sievers 1982; Weski 1982; Ha¨rke 1990, 1992). While this entire interest in ritual may appear “postprocessualist,” it owes more to the German historiographical tradition of source criticism and data classification (cf. Ha¨rke 1993, 1994) than to the British postprocessual debate of the 1980s and early 1990s. Other studies have analyzed ritual to approach old questions, such as religion and ethnicity, in new ways. Schu¨lke (1994, 1997, 1999) has taken a critical look at the conventional assumption that grave goods

376

¨ RKE HEINRICH HA

and other details of burial ritual can be used as indicators of Christianization and has suggested an alternative approach which puts the emphasis on the grave context (cf. also Staecker 1999). The basis of ethnic identification has increasingly been shifted from artifacts in graves to mortuary ritual. Examples of this are the attempts to work out the ethnic composition of populations in early medieval trading towns from the frequencies of supposedly diagnostic disposal types and grave constructions in their cemeteries (Steuer 1984b; Jo¨ns et al. 1997: 208 –214). This approach is based on the assumption that ritual is more conservative, and therefore more diagnostic, than artifact styles—an assumption which has yet to be subjected to methodological scrutiny. Siegmund has taken this approach in a different direction, using entire cemeteries as units of analysis (Siegmund 1999, 2000). Starting out from the observation that the ethnic affiliation of individual graves can hardly ever be identified because of their diversity, he argues that the “average” burial rite of an entire cemetery (including frequencies of artifact types, orientations of inhumation graves, frequencies of cremations) is a better reflection of the “cultural model,” and thus the ethnic affiliation, of its population. Mapping the “cultural models” of more than 200 cemeteries of the 6th century A.D. in western and northern Germany reveals two homogeneous areas in the west and south which he equates with documented settlement areas of the Franks and the Alamanni, respectively (Siegmund 2000), and a heterogeneous area in the north where written sources would locate the Saxons. The internal heterogeneity of the latter area leads him to doubt if the Saxons were a homogenous ethnic group (Siegmund 1999: 222). Siegmund’s work highlights the continued attraction of the ethnic question for the younger genera-

tion of German archaeologists and their desire to find new approaches to deal with this traditional area of research. Some topics which have recently been the focus of attention in Anglophone burial archaeology have so far attracted little or no attention in Germany or have dropped from sight after early discussion a long time ago. Thus, formation processes of the mortuary evidence which have received some attention in the American literature (Tainter 1978: 110 –114; O’Shea 1984: 23–31; Schiffer 1987: 80 – 89) had been considered in Eggers’ influential, early writings (Eggers 1951: 24 – 28, 1959: 255–295), but have been virtually ignored thereafter, mostly because of the widespread assumption that Eggers had said everything that needed saying about that subject. The issues of gender and age, while implicit in much of the work by Gebu¨hr and his students (cf. above) over the last 2 decades, have only recently been addressed more explicitly in their studies (Gebu¨hr 1997; Burmeister, in press; Derks 1992, 1993, 1997, in press). Gender as a research question is making some progress in historical archaeology (e.g., Brugmann 1996; Staecker 1996), but it is probably fair to say that it is still largely an interest at the student level and on the fringes of German mainstream archaeology (Brandt 1996). And while recent American and British publications on gender have had some impact on the few young archaeologists interested in this question, most inspiration appears to have come from the German women’s movement and from Scandinavian archaeology, where gender research predates Anglo-American approaches in this field. Research interest in the medieval re-use of prehistoric and Roman monuments is a very recent development (e.g., Tha¨te 1996), as it is in British medieval archaeology. Finally, the reburial issue has not been an issue at all in German archaeology, and its existence elsewhere is largely unknown to German colleagues.

377

GERMAN MORTUARY ANALYSIS TABLE 3 Comparative Developments of the German and Anglophone Debates on the Social Analysis of Mortuary Evidence German-language debate Critique of cultural–historical approach Analysis of labor investment in graves Analysis of skeletal data as part of an archaeological approach Multidimensional analysis of cemeteries Integration of mortuary and settlement evidence

Anglophone debate

Steuer (1968) Schlu¨ter (1970) Gebu¨hr (1975)

Binford (1971) Tainter (1973) Renfrew (1973) Shennan (1975)

Ament (1970) Martin (1976)

Peebles (1971)

Steuer (1982)

Tainter and Cordy (1977)

LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS There are two lessons, at least, to be drawn from the parallel debates in German and Anglophone burial archaeology— one relating to contents and the other to communication. Concerning contents, archaeologists outside German-speaking countries might simply want to take notice of the approaches and arguments of their German colleagues; the latter have already been apprised of the key points of the Anglophone debate up to the late 1980s (Ha¨rke 1989). While the two debates started in different fields of the discipline and from different premises, there are some interesting parallels (Table 3). Both debates started at around the same time (late 1960s/early 1970s), and in both cases the starting point was a critique of assumptions rooted in the cultural– historical tradition of the discipline. Both debates fostered the realization that the analysis of burial wealth alone, however systematic and statistically informed, would not produce deep insights into social organisation. In both cases, this realization led to the additional use of other mortuary data and to the demand for the integration of burial and settlement evidence. German colleagues (led by Schlu¨ter 1970) appear to have taken the former step shortly before their Anglophone colleagues, while the latter (led by Tainter and Cordy

1977) were slightly ahead in realizing the importance of the integrated approach. But the differences between the two debates are perhaps even more illuminating. Probably the most important difference lies in the types of evidence adduced to construct and verify hypotheses for the archaeological analysis: ethnographic evidence and cross-cultural comparisons have played a key role in the Anglophone debate (Ucko 1969; Saxe 1970; Binford 1971; Tainter 1978; Parker Pearson 1982; O’Shea 1984) but until very recently, none at all in the German debate; 1 by contrast, historical data and textual evidence were used in German contributions but were virtually absent from the Anglophone debate. Indeed, when young historical archaeologists working in Britain entered the burial debate around 1980, they deliberately ignored historical evidence because they feared it might prejudice the archaeological analysis (Shephard 1979; Arnold 1980, Pader 1982). The reason for this stark contrast lies in 1 Cf. the proceedings of the 1997 symposium of the Ethnoarchaeology Workshop on ethnoarchaeological approaches to mortuary studies, published in Ethnographisch-Archa¨ologische Zeitschrift 38(3– 4), 1997. The topics which dominated the symposium were the mortuary rites of hunter– gatherer societies and questions of age and gender relations. Other topics included general theory, secondary burial, the role of ideology, and food depositions in graves.

378

¨ RKE HEINRICH HA

the different origins of the two debates. The Anglophone debate started in North American prehistoric archaeology, which is based within the wider context of cultural anthropology, and it was picked up by British prehistoric archaeology, which has institutional and academic links to social anthropology. The German debate happened to develop in early historical archaeology which has traditional, close ties to medieval history, and this has tended to encourage and facilitate the use of textual evidence in archaeological studies generally, not just for burial analysis. There is a further, important aspect: since 1945, West German archaeologists have shunned cross-cultural comparisons and “ethnographic parallels” (the traditional German term for anthropological evidence used for comparative purposes in archaeology, derived from its original, narrow use for formal analogies). This happened partly because of their tendentious use in Nazi and nationalist archaeology and partly because of the withdrawal of postwar West German archaeology into antiquarianism (cf. below). The second lesson we might want to draw concerns communication. The main reasons for the parallel existence and mutual ignorance of the two debates are language barriers and a mutual lack of interest in the other respective tradition of scholarship. Concerning language barriers, there are actually two different problems involved. It is probably no exaggeration to say that there does exist a real language barrier as seen from Anglophone archaeology because fewer and fewer aspiring archaeologists in the United States and Britain seem to learn German (or any other Continental European language, for that matter). This is only partly a result of the school systems in Anglophone countries; partly it appears to be a consequence of the myopic expectation that everything of importance is, or should be, published in English. While the rise since 1945 of En-

glish to the world language is undeniable, the implicit assumption that foreign-language publications, and thus entire scholarly traditions abroad, may be ignored with impunity is neither a logical nor an acceptable inference from this development. On the German side of the language barrier, the situation is different: virtually all German colleagues can read and understand English quite well. With them, the problem lies elsewhere: over the last 3 or 4 decades, German pre- and protohistoric archaeologists have shown a distinct lack of interest in Anglophone literature (except, perhaps, for site publications and artifact catalogues), and German archaeology students have not been encouraged by their professors to read English-language publications—in some cases, they have been positively discouraged. There are a few signs that the situation may be changing slowly, at least at some universities (cf. Eggert and Veit 1998), but the damage has been done. The reason for this lack of interest is to be found in the German retreat after the Nazi episode into something approaching antiquarianism. In consequence, German pre- and protohistoric archaeology got increasingly out of step with the development of the discipline abroad. From the later 1960s onward, German archaeologists virtually disengaged from the international exchange of ideas when they refused to be drawn into the processual and postprocessual debates (Ha¨rke 1991, 1995). This withdrawal, in turn, only served to strengthen, and seemingly justify, the Anglo-American attitude that nothing could be gained from trying to follow German-language publications and debates. The case of the two parallel debates on mortuary analysis in Anglo-American and German archaeology demonstrates that the attitudes shown by both traditions since the 1960s may harm, or at the very

GERMAN MORTUARY ANALYSIS

least impede the progress of, the discipline as a whole. The complete lack of communication between the two traditions meant that the wheel had to be invented twice, and it happened not just in burial archaeology, but also in environmental archaeology (cf. Ha¨rke 1984). One may be pleased about the variety created by the two parallel exercises or be intrigued by the degree of convergent evolution in both (Table 3). But one wonders what may have been achieved, or achieved earlier, if the two traditions had actually communicated with, instead of ignored, each other. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper had been planned for a long time, but could finally be written while I held a Senior Research Fellowship of the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust 1997/98; I am grateful to both institutions for their generous support. I am also indebted to Richard Bradley, Robert Chapman (both Reading), and Almut Schu¨lke (Tu¨bingen) for their comments on the first draft.

REFERENCES CITED Alt, Kurt W., and Werner Vach 1994 Rekonstruktion biologischer und sozialer Strukturen in ur- und fru¨hgeschichtlichen Bevo¨lkerungen—Innovative Ansa¨tze zur Verwandtschaftsanalyse in der Archa¨ologie. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 69:56 –91. 1995 Odontologic kinship analysis in skeletal remains: Concepts, methods, and results. Forensic Science International 74:99 –113. Alt, Kurt W., Werner Vach, and Lars Jørgensen 1993 Anwendung und Bedeutung archa¨ologischer Informationen in der anthropologischen Verwandtschaftsanalyse. Archa¨ologische Informationen 16:295–300. Alt, Kurt W., Martina Munz, and Werner Vach 1995 Hallstattzeitliche Grabhu¨gel im Spiegel ihrer biologischen und sozialen Strukturen am Beispiel des Hu¨gelgra¨berfeldes von Dattingen, Kr. Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald. Germania 73:281–316. Ament, Hermann 1970 Fra¨nkische Adelsgra¨ber von Flonheim in Rheinhessen. Germanische Denkma¨ler der Vo¨lkerwanderungszeit B 5. Mann, Berlin.

379

Ament, Hermann 1987 Review of Steuer 1982. Germania 65:293–297. Arnold, Chris J. 1980 Wealth and social structure: A matter of life and death. In Anglo-Saxon cemeteries 1979: The fourth Anglo-Saxon symposium at Oxford, edited by Philip Rahtz, Tania Dickinson, and Lorna Watts, pp. 81–142. British Archaeological Reports 82, Oxford. Bartel, Brad 1982 A historical review of ethnological and archaeological analyses of mortuary practice. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:32– 58. Binford, Lewis R. 1971 Mortuary practices: Their study and their potential. In Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuary practices, edited by James A. Brown, pp. 6 –29. American Antiquity 36 No. 3 Pt. 2/Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25, Washington DC. Brandt, Helga 1996 Frauen- und feministische Forschung in der Ur- und Fru¨hgeschichte. Ethnographisch-Archa¨ologische Zeitschrift 37:59 – 85. Brown, James A. (Editor) 1971 Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuary practices. American Antiquity 36 No. 3 Pt. 2/Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25, Washington DC. 1995 On mortuary analysis—with special reference to the Saxe-Binford research program. In Regional approaches to mortuary analysis, edited by Lane Anderson Beck, pp. 3–26. Plenum, New York. Brugmann, Birte 1996 Drei Frauen in einem Boot? Ein forschungsgeschichtlicher Abriß zum Nachweis von Anglinnen, Sa¨chsinnen und Ju¨tinnen in England. In Ko¨nigin, Klosterfrau, Ba¨uerin: Frauen im Fru¨hmittelalter, edited by Helga Brandt and Julia K. Koch, pp. 73– 82. Frauen-Forschung-Archa¨ologie 2. Mu¨nster, agenda. Burmeister, Stefan 1993 Die ju¨ngere Hallstattzeit in Wu¨rttemberg. Kulturgeschichte im Spiegel der Grabfunde. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Hamburg. In Studien zu Geschlechterverha¨ltnis und Herrpress schaft in der Spa¨thallstattzeit Wu¨rttembergs. Tu¨binger Schriften zur Vor- und Fru¨hgeschichtlichen Archa¨ologie 4. Waxmann, Mu¨nster.

380

¨ RKE HEINRICH HA

Chapman, Robert, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg (Editors) 1981 The archaeology of death. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. Christlein, Rainer 1966 Das alamannische Reihengra¨berfeld von Marktoberdorf im Allga¨u. Materialhefte zur bayerischen Vorgeschichte 21. Lassleben, Kallmu¨nz. 1971 Das alamannische Gra¨berfeld von Dirlewang bei Mindelheim. Materialhefte zur bayerischen Vorgeschichte 25. Lassleben, Kallmu¨nz. 1973 Besitzabstufungen zur Merowingerzeit im Spiegel reicher Grabfunde aus West- und Su¨ddeutschland. Jahrbuch des Ro¨misch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 20:147–180. Czarnetzki, Alfred, Christian Uhlig, Rotraud Wolf, and Theodor Schwarz 1983 Skelette erza¨hlen. Menschen des fru¨hen Mittelalters im Spiegel der Anthropologie und Medizin (exhibition catalogue), 2nd ed. Wu¨rttembergisches Landesmuseum, Stuttgart. Derks, Heidrun 1992 Das Gra¨berfeld von Tostedt-Wu¨stenho¨fen: Zur Frage geschlechtsspezifischer Bestattungspla¨tze. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Hamburg. 1993 Geschlechtsspezifische Bestattungssitten: Ein archa¨ologischer Befund und ein ethnoarcha¨ologischer Ansatz. Ethnographisch-Archa¨ologische Zeitschrift 34:340 –353. 1997 Alter und Geschlecht—Biologische Parameter als Instrument sozialer Differenzierung in der a¨lteren Ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit Norddeutschlands? Ethnographisch-Archa¨ologische Zeitschrift 38:531–550. In Children’s burials of the Older Roman Iron press Age in Northern Germany. In Children and material culture, edited by Joanna Sofaer-Derevenskij. Routledge, London. Eggers, Hans Ju¨rgen 1951 Der ro¨mische Import im Freien Germanien. Atlas der Urgeschichte 1. Hamburgisches Museum fu¨r Vo¨lkerkunde und Vorgeschichte, Hamburg. 1959 Einfu¨hrung in die Vorgeschichte. Piper, Munich. Eggert, Manfred K. H., and Ulrich Veit (Editors) 1998 Theorie in der Archa¨ologie: Zur englischsprachigen Diskussion. Tu¨binger Archa¨ologische Taschenbu¨cher 1. Waxmann, Mu¨nster. Fehring, Gu¨nter P. 1979 Missions- und Kirchenwesen in archa¨ologischer Sicht. In Geschichtswissenschaft und

Archa¨ologie, edited by Herbert Jankuhn and Reinhard Wenskus, pp. 547–591. Vortra¨ge und Forschungen 22. Thorbecke, Sigmaringen. Fingerlin, Gerhard 1971 Die alamannischen Gra¨berfelder von Gu¨ttingen und Merdingen in Su¨dbaden. Germanische Denkma¨ler der Vo¨lkerwanderungszeit A 12. de Gruyter, Berlin. Gebu¨hr, Michael 1974 Zur Definition a¨lterkaiserzeitlicher Fu¨rstengra¨ber vom Lu¨bsow-Typ. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 49:82–128. 1975 Versuch einer statistischen Auswertung von Grabfunden der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit am Beispiel der Gra¨berfelder von Hamfelde und Kemnitz. Zeitschrift fu¨r Ostforschung 24: 433– 456. 1976 Der Trachtschmuck der a¨lteren ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit im Gebiet zwischen unterer Elbe und Oder und auf den westlichen da¨nischen Inseln. Go¨ttinger Schriften zur Vor- und Fru¨hgeschichte 18. Wachholtz, Neumu¨nster. 1994 Alter und Geschlecht. Aussagemo¨glichkeiten anhand des archa¨ologischen und anthropologischen Befundes. In Prehistoric graves as a source of information, edited by Berta Stjernquist, pp. 31–39. Konferenser 29, Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens, Stockholm. 1997 The Holsteinian housewife and the Danish diva: Early Germanic female images in Tacitus and cemetery evidence. Norwegian Archaeological Review 30:113–122. Gebu¨hr, Michael, and Ju¨rgen Kunow 1976 Der Urnenfriedhof von Kemnitz, Kr. Potsdam-Land. Zeitschrift fu¨r Archa¨ologie 10:185– 222. Gebu¨hr, Michael, Ulrich Hartung, and Horst Meier 1989 Das Gra¨berfeld von Neubrandenburg. Beobachtungen zum anthropologischen und archa¨ologischen Befund. In Archa¨ologischer Befund und historische Deutung. Festschrift fu¨r Wolfgang Hu¨bener, edited by Hartwig Lu¨dtke, Friedrich Lu¨th, and Friedrich Laux, pp. 85–107. Hammaburg N.F. 9. Wachholtz, Neumu¨nster. Genrich, Albert J. 1971 Grabbeigaben und germanisches Recht. Die Kunde N.S. 22:189 –226. Ha¨rke, Heinrich 1984 Review of Colin Renfrew and Stephen Shennan (Eds), Ranking, resource and exchange, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50:418 – 420.

GERMAN MORTUARY ANALYSIS 1989 Die anglo-amerikanische Diskussion zur Gra¨beranalyse. Archa¨ologisches Korrespondenzblatt 19:185–194. 1990 “Warrior graves”? The background of the Anglo-Saxon weapon burial rite. Past & Present 126:22– 43. 1991 All Quiet on the Western Front? Paradigms, methods and approaches in West German archaeology. In Archaeological theory in Europe: The last three decades, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 187–222. Routledge, London. 1992 Angelsa¨chsische Waffengra¨ber des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts. Zeitschrift fu¨r Archa¨ologie des Mittelalters Beiheft 6. Rheinland-Verlag and Habelt, Cologne. 1993 Intentionale und funktionale Daten. Archa¨ologisches Korrespondenzblatt 23:141–146. 1994 Data types in burial analysis. In Prehistoric graves as a source of information, edited by Berta Stjernquist, pp. 31–39. Konferenser 29, Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens, Stockholm. 1995 “The Hun is a methodical chap”: Reflections on the German tradition of pre- and protohistory. In Theory in archaeology: A world perspective, edited by Peter J. Ucko, pp. 46 – 60. Theoretical Archaeology Group series. Routledge, London. Haffner, Alfred (Editor) 1989 Gra¨ber-Spiegel des Lebens. Zabern, Mainz. Henke, Winfried, and Karl-Heinz Nedder 1981 Zur Anthropologie der fra¨nkischen Bevo¨lkerung von Ru¨benach. Bonner Jahrbu¨cher 181:195– 419. Hodder, Ian 1980 Social structure and cemeteries: A critical appraisal. In Anglo-Saxon cemeteries 1979: The fourth Anglo-Saxon symposium at Oxford, edited by Philip Rahtz, Tania Dickinson, and Lorna Watts, pp. 161–169. British Archaeological Reports 82, Oxford. 1982 The identification and interpretation of ranking in prehistory: A contextual approach. In Ranking, resource and exchange, edited by Colin Renfrew and Stephen Shennan, pp. 150 –154. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. Huber, N. M. 1967 Anthropologische Untersuchungen an den Skeletten aus dem alamannischen Reihengra¨berfeld von Weingarten, Kr. Ravensburg. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zur Vorund Fru¨hgeschichte in Wu¨rttemberg und Hohenzollern 3. Mu¨ller & Gra¨ff, Stuttgart.

381

Hu¨bener, Wolfgang 1977 Waffennormen und Bewaffnungstypen der fru¨hen Merowingerzeit. Fundberichte aus Baden-Wu¨rttemberg 3:510 –527. James, Edward 1980 Merovingian cemetery studies, and some implications for Anglo-Saxon England. In Anglo-Saxon cemeteries 1979: The fourth AngloSaxon symposium at Oxford, edited by Philip Rahtz, Tania Dickinson, and Lorna Watts, pp. 35–55. British Archaeological Reports 82, Oxford. 1989 Burial and status in the early medieval west. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (5th series) 39:23– 40. Janssen, Walter 1980 Eine reiche fra¨nkische Doppelbestattung aus Niedermerz, Kr. Du¨ren. Offa 37:77–96. Jo¨ns, Hauke, Friedrich Lu¨th, and Michael Mu¨llerWille 1997 Ausgrabungen auf dem fru¨hgeschichtlichen Seehandelsplatz von Groß Stro¨mkendorf, Kr. Nordwestmecklenburg. Erste Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojektes. Germania 75:193–221. Jørgensen, Lars 1987 Family burial practices and inheritance systems. The development of an Iron Age society from 500 BC to AD 1000 on Bornholm, Denmark. Acta Archaologica 58:17–53. 1991 Castel Trosino and Nocera Umbra. A chronological and social analysis of family burial practices in Lombard Italy (6th– 8th cent. A.D.). Acta Archaeologica 62:1–58. Jørgensen, Lars, Kurt W. Alt, and Werner Vach 1997 Families at Kirchheim am Ries: Analysis of Merovingian aristocratic and warrior families. In Military aspects of Scandinavian society in a European perspective, AD 1–1300, edited by Anne Nørgård Jørgensen and Birthe L. Clausen, pp. 102–112. Publications from the National Museum, Studies in Archaeology and History 2, National Museum, Copenhagen. Kersting, Thomas 1992 Ein sippenweise belegtes alamannisches Gra¨berfeld von Zusamaltheim, Kr. Dillingen a.d. Donau. Archa¨ologisches Korrespondenzblatt 22:255–265. Koch, Robert 1967 Bodenfunde der Vo¨lkerwanderungszeit aus dem Main-Tauber-Gebiet. Germanische Denkma¨ler der Vo¨lkerwanderungszeit A 8. de Gruyter, Berlin.

382

¨ RKE HEINRICH HA

Koch, Ursula 1977 Das Reihengra¨berfeld bei Schretzheim. Germanische Denkma¨ler der Vo¨lkerwanderungszeit A 13. Mann, Berlin. 1982 Die fra¨nkischen Gra¨berfelder von Bargen und Berghausen in Nordbaden. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Fru¨hgeschichte in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg 12. Theiss, Stuttgart. 1990 Das fra¨nkische Gra¨berfeld von Klepsau im Hohenlohekreis. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Fru¨hgeschichte in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg 38. Theiss, Stuttgart. Kunow, Ju¨rgen 1984 Review of Steuer 1982. Bonner Jahrbu¨cher 184: 841– 849. Kunst, Michael 1978 Arm und Reich—Jung und Alt. Offa 35:86 – 109. Lorenz, Herbert 1978 Totenbrauchtum und Totentracht. Untersuchungen zur regionalen Gliederung in der fru¨hen Late`nezeit. Berichte der Ro¨misch-Germanischen Kommission 59:1–380. Martin, Max 1976 Das fra¨nkische Gra¨berfeld von Basel-Bernerring. Baseler Beitra¨ge zur Ur- und Fru¨hgeschichte. Archa¨ologischer Verlag, Basle. Morris, Ian 1987 Burial and ancient society. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. Mu¨ller, Hermann 1976 Das alamannische Gra¨berfeld von Hemmingen (Kreis Ludwigsburg). Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Fru¨hgeschichte in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg 7. Mu¨ller & Gra¨ff, Stuttgart. Neuffer, Eduard M. 1972 Der Reihengra¨berfriedhof von Donzdorf (Kreis Go¨ppingen). Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Fru¨hgeschichte in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg 2. Mu¨ller & Gra¨ff, Stuttgart. Neuffer-Mu¨ller, Christiane 1972 Das fra¨nkische Gra¨berfeld von Iversheim, Kreis Euskirchen. Germanische Denkma¨ler der Vo¨lkerwanderungszeit B 6. Mann, Berlin. Neuffer-Mu¨ller, Christiane, and Hermann Ament 1973 Das fra¨nkische Gra¨berfeld von Ru¨benach, Stadt Koblenz. Germanische Denkma¨ler der Vo¨lkerwanderungszeit B 7. Mann, Berlin. O’Shea, John M. 1984 Mortuary variability: An archaeological investigation. Studies in Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.

Pader, Ellen Jane 1982 Symbolism, social relations and the interpretation of mortuary remains. British Archaeological Reports International Series 130. Oxford. Parker Pearson, Mike 1982 Mortuary practices, society and ideology: An ethnoarchaeological study. In Symbolic and structural archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 99 –113. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. 1995 Return of the living dead: Mortuary analysis and the New Archaeology revisited. Antiquity 69:1046 –1048. Paulsen, Peter 1967 Alamannische Adelsgra¨ber von Niederstotzingen. Vero¨ffentlichungen des Staatlichen Amts fu¨r Denkmalpflege Stuttgart A 12. Mu¨ller & Gra¨ff, Stuttgart. Paulsen, Peter, and Helga Schach-Do¨rges 1978 Das alamannische Gra¨berfeld von Giengen an der Brenz (Kreis Heidenheim). Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Fru¨hgeschichte in Baden-Wu¨rttemberg 10. Mu¨ller & Gra¨ff, Stuttgart. Peebles, Christopher S. 1971 Moundville and surrounding sites: Some structural considerations of mortuary practices II. In Approaches to the social dimensions of mortuary practices, edited by James A. Brown, pp. 68 –91. American Antiquity 36 No. 3 Pt. 2/Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25, Washington DC. Redlich, Clara 1948 Erbrecht und Grabbeigaben bei den Germanen. Forschungen und Fortschritte 24:177– 180. Reinecke, Paul 1925 Reihengra¨ber und Friedho¨fe der Kirchen. Germania 9:103–107. Renfrew, Colin 1973 Monuments, mobilization and social organization in neolithic Wessex. In The explanation of culture change: Models in prehistory, edited by Colin Renfrew, pp. 539 –558. Duckworth, London. Rolle, Renate 1979 Totenkult der Skythen. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 18. de Gruyter, Berlin. Samson, Ross 1987 Social structures from Reihengra¨ber: Mirror or mirage? Scottish Archaeological Review 4:116 –126.

GERMAN MORTUARY ANALYSIS Sankot, Pavel 1980 Studie zur Sozialstruktur der nordalpinen Flachgra¨berfelder der La-Te`ne-Zeit im Gebiet der Schweiz. Zeitschrift fu¨r Schweizerische Archa¨ologie und Kunstgeschichte 37:19 – 71. Saxe, Arthur Alan 1970 Social dimensions of mortuary practices. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Schiffer, Michael B. 1987 Formation processes of the archaeological record. Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Schlu¨ter, Wolfgang 1970 Versuch einer sozialen Differenzierung der jungkaiserzeitlichen Ko¨rpergra¨bergruppe von Haßleben-Leuna anhand einer Analyse der Grabfunde. Neue Ausgrabungen und Forschungen in Niedersachsen 6:117–145. Schu¨lke, Almut 1994 Die “Christianisierung” als Forschungsproblem der su¨dwestdeutschen Gra¨berarcha¨ologie. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Tu¨bingen. 1997 Zeugnisse der “Christianisierung” im Grabbefund? Eine Forschungsgeschichte mit Ausblick. Ethnographisch-Archa¨ologische Zeitschrift 38:457– 468. 1999 On Christianization and grave-finds. European Journal of Archaeology 2:77–106. Schumacher, Karl 1925 Siedelungs- und Kulturgeschichte der Rheinlande von der Urzeit bis in das Mittelalter. Vol. III: Die merowingische und karolingische Zeit. Handbu¨cher des ro¨misch-germanischen Central-Museums. Wilckens, Mainz. Shanks, Michael, and Christopher Tilley 1982 Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: A reinterpretation of neolithic mortuary practices. In Symbolic and structural archaeology, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 129 – 154. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. Shennan, Susan 1975 The social organisation at Brancˇ. Antiquity 49:279 –288. Shephard, John F. 1979 The social identity of the individual in isolated barrows and barrow cemeteries in Anglo-Saxon England. In Space, hierarchy and society, edited by Barry C. Burnham and John Kingsbury, pp. 47–79. British Archaeological Reports International Series 59. Oxford.

383

Siegmund, Frank 1999 Als Franke sterben: Ethnizita¨t und Lebensraum der su¨dlichen Nachbarn der Sachsen nach archa¨ologischen Quellen. Studien zur Sachsenforschung 12:209 –222. 2000 Alemannen und Franken. Archa¨ologische Studie zu Ethnien und ihren Siedlungsra¨umen in der Merowingerzeit. Erga¨nzungsba¨nde zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 23. de Gruyter, Berlin and New York. Sievers, Susanne 1982 Die mitteleuropa¨ischen Hallstattdolche. Pra¨historische Bronzefunde VI 6. Beck, Munich. Staecker, Jo¨rn 1996 Searching for the unknown: Gotland’s churchyards from a gender and missionary perspective. Lund Archaeological Review 2: 63– 86. 1999 Rex regum et dominus dominorum: Die wikingerzeitlichen Kreuz- und Kruzifixanha¨nger als Ausdruck der Mission in Altda¨nemark und Schweden. Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 22. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm. Stein, Frauke 1967 Adelsgra¨ber des achten Jahrhunderts in Deutschland. Germanische Denkma¨ler der Vo¨lkerwanderungszeit A 9. de Gruyter, Berlin. Steuer, Heiko 1968 Zur Bewaffnung und Sozialstruktur der Merowingerzeit. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 37:18 – 87. 1982 Fru¨hgeschichtliche Sozialstrukturen in Mitteleuropa. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Go¨ttingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 3. Folge, 128. Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, Go¨ttingen. 1984a Die fru¨hmittelalterliche Gesellschaftsstruktur im Spiegel der Grabfunde. In Hessen im Fru¨hmittelalter: Archa¨ologie und Kunst, edited by Helmut Roth and Egon Wamers, pp. 78 – 86, 196 –199. Thorbecke, Sigmaringen. 1984b Zur ethnischen Gliederung der Bevo¨lkerung von Haithabu anhand der Gra¨berfelder. Offa 41:189 –212. Straub, Roderich 1956 Zur Kontinuita¨t der voralamannischen Bevo¨lkerung. Badische Fundberichte 20:127–137. Tainter, Joseph A. 1973 The social correlates of mortuary patterning at Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 8:1–11. 1975 Social inference and mortuary practices: An experiment in numerical classification. World Archaeology 7:1–15.

384

¨ RKE HEINRICH HA

1978 Mortuary practices and the study of prehistoric social systems. In Advances in archaeological method and theory, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, Vol. 1, pp. 106 –141. Academic Press, New York. Tainter, Joseph A., and Ross H. Cordy 1977 An archaeological analysis of social ranking and residence groups in prehistoric Hawaii. World Archaeology 9:95–112. Tha¨te, Eva 1996 Alte Denkma¨ler und Fru¨hgeschichtliche Bestattungen: Ein Sa¨chsisch-angelsa¨chsischer Totenbrauch und seine Kontinuita¨t. Archa¨ologische Informationen 19:105–116. Thrane, Henrik 1981 Late Bronze Age graves in Denmark seen as expressions of social ranking—An initial report. In Studien zur Bronzezeit: Festschrift fu¨r Wilhelm Albert v. Brunn, edited by Herbert Lorenz, pp. 475– 488. Zabern, Mainz. Tilley, Christopher 1984 Ideology and the legitimation of power in the middle neolithic of southern Sweden. In Ideology, power and prehistory, edited by Danny Miller and Christopher Tilley, pp.

111–146. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. Ucko, Peter J. 1969 Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. World Archaeology 1:262–280. Veeck, Walter 1926 Der Reihengra¨berfriedhof von Holzgerlingen. Fundberichte aus Schwaben N.F. 3:154 – 201. Vierck, Hayo 1980 Ein westfa¨lisches “Adelsgrab” des 8. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. Studien zur Sachsenforschung 2:457– 488. Werner, Joachim 1968 Bewaffnung und Waffenbeigabe in der Merowingerzeit. Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 15:95–108, 199 –205. Weski, Tim 1982 Waffen in Gra¨bern der a¨lteren ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit su¨dlich der Ostsee. British Archaeological Reports International Series 147. Oxford.